ACF Bulletin #210, March 31, 2003

** Chess Today
Daily Chess News - Annotated Games - Chess Lessons and Hints
Interviews, reviews and more!
Free trial -

** Italo-Australian Club 41st Doeberl Cup
Australia's premier weekend tournament!
Canberra, 18-21 April - Total Prizes: $10,000

** University Open 2003
$4000 total prizes - Category 3 Grand Prix
12-13 July - Adelaide University, SA

** Job Opportunity - Chess Kids, Melbourne
A position as full-time Chess Coach is available with 
Chess Kids from the start of Term 2 (May 1st). Salary: $27,700 + super (9% of gross)
Contact or David on 0411-877-833 for more details.


* Tournament calendar
* Bulletin submissions
* Gil Georges RIP
* Letters - Even more on the Glicko rating system
* Chess World Grand Prix 2003
* Upcoming tournaments


ACF homepage:
Bulletins online:
Bulletin Board:
International news and games:


Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the Bulletin - please keep them coming!
But I think some changes are necessary to keep the Bulletin readable. Please follow 
the following instructions when submitting items:

* Use plain text (best) or Word format *without tabs or fancy formatting*
* Letters: please limit letters to about 100 words. If you wish to write a longer letter,
post it to the Bulletin Board and email me a 100-word summary.
* Tournament ads: please submit *both* a short version and a long version. The short version
(4 lines max) should state the name, date, and address of the tournament. The long version 
can state whatever you like. The short version will appear in the newsletter, while the long version 
will be posted on the ACF website's *upcoming* tournament calendar. Please note that 
Grand Prix tournaments will continue to be listed as previously. 
* If you wish to have a tournament etc advertised at the top of the newsletter, 
a fee of $20 will be charged. 


Some sad news: on the 24th of March, well-loved NSW Central Coast 
player Gil [Galal] Georges passed away. Gil was a valued member and 
club secretary of Gosford Leagues Chess Club and well-respected 
as a chess coach. Gil had been ill for some time. He will be missed.


The Box Hill Chess Club's 2003 Lightning Championship 
has been won by Peter Froehlich for the first time. 
44 players participated in a 9 round Swiss played on 28/3/3.
Peter won with a score of 8/9 from Sam Chow 7.5/9.
B Division was won by Rukman Vijayakumar on 6/9, and 
C Division was shared by Elena Galiabovitch and Christopher Wallis.

- Trevor Stanning


Leading scores after six rounds:
5.0 Xie, Yu
4.5 Seberry, Bird, Canfell
4.0 Fell

Some games from round 5, courtesy Peter Cassetari and the players:

Greg Canfell versus Ralph Seberry

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8.
cxd4 f6 9. Nf4 Nxd4 10. Qh5+ Ke7 11. exf6+ Nxf6 12. Ng6+ hxg6 13. Qxh8 Kf7
14. O-O e5 15. Nf3 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 e4 17. fxe4 Nh5 18. Be3?! 

{18. exd5 = } 

Qh4 19. f3 Bh3 20. Qh7 Bc5 21. Bxc5 Qg5+ 22. Kf2 Qd2+? 

{ Bxf1 23. Rf1  Qd2+ 24. Kg1 Nf4 25. Rf2 Nd3 advantage black; 23 Kf1  Nf4 24 Rd1 Nxd3 25 Rxd3 Qc1+ advantage 
black; 23 Bf1 Rc8 -+ } 

23. Be2 d4? 

{ Bxf1 24. Kxf1 Nf4 25. Re1 Nxe2 26. Rxe2 Qc1+ unclear; d4? +- }  

24. Rad1 Qe3+ 25. Ke1 Bxf1 26. Kxf1 Rd8 27. e5 Qxe5 28. Bc4+ Kf6 29. Re1 1-0

George Xie versus Lloyd Fell

1.e2-e4 c7-c6 2.d2-d4 d7-d5 3. Nb1-d2 d5xe4 4. Nd2xe4 Ng8-f6 5. Ne4xf6+ 
e7xf6 6. Bf1-c4 Qd8-e7+ 7. Qd1-e2 Bc8-e6 8. Bc4-b3 Nb8-a6 9.c2-c3 Na6-c7 
10. Bc1-d2 a7-a5 11. Bb3xe6 Qe7xe6 12. Ng1-f3 Bf8-e7 13. Qe2xe6 f7xe6 
14. O-O Ke8-f7 15. Bd2-f4 Nc7-d5 16. Bf4-g3 a5-a4 17. Ra1-c1 Rh8-d8
18.c3-c4 Nd5-b4 19.a2-a3 Nb4-a6 20.c4-c5 Rd8-d7 21. Rc1-c4 Na6-c7 
22. Bg3xc7 Rd7xc7 23. Rf1-c1 Rc7-d7 24. Kg1-f1 Be7-f8 25. Rc4-b4 b7-b5 
26.b2-b3 a4xb3 27. Rb4xb3 Rd7-d5 28. Rb3-c3 g7-g629. Kf1-e2 Bf8-g7 
30. Rc1-c2 Ra8-d831.a3-a4 b5xa4 32. Rc3-a3 f6-f5 33. Ra3xa4 Bg7xd4 
34. Ra4-a7+ Rd8-d7 35. Ra7xd7+ Rd5xd736. Rc2-d2 e6-e5 37. Nf3xe5+ Bd4xe5 
38. Rd2xd7+ Kf7-f6 39. Rd7xh7 Be5-d4 40.h2-h4 Bd4xc5 41. Rh7-c7 Bc5-e7 
42. Rc7xc6+ Kf6-f7 43. Rc6-c7 Kf7-e6 44. Rc7xe7+ Ke6xe7 45. Ke2-e3 Ke7-e6 
46. Ke3-f4 Ke6-f6 47.g2-g3 Kf6-f7 48. Kf4-g5 Kf7-g7 49.h4-h5g6xh5 
50. Kg5xh5 f5-f4 51.g3xf4 Kg7-f6 52. Kh5-g4 Kf6-g6 53.f4-f5+ Kg6-f6 
54. Kg4-f4 Kf6-f7 55. Kf4-e5 Kf7-e7 56.f5-f6+ Ke7-f7 57. Ke5-f5 Kf7-f8 
58. Kf5-e6 Kf8-e8 59.f6-f7+ 1-0


I have just arrived home from the 2002 Sport and Recreation Industry Awards
(ie presented in 2003 for achievements in 2002).  I sat at a table with
representatives from orienteering, softball and swimming and enjoyed
pre-lunch drinks with people whose interests were as diverse as snow sports,
soccer and fitness for the aged.  ACT Minister for Sport Ted Quinlan was on
hand, along with his opposition counterpart, Bill Stefaniak.

Awards were presented in 7 categories and were awarded at both a Club, and
Peak Body, level.  ACTJCL was in line for a "Club" award as ACTCA itself is
recognised as the Peak Body.  To give you some perspective, awards were won
by ACT Tennis for the Canberra Women's Classic - an international tour
event, the YMCA and PCYC, a junior soccer club and an off-road cycle tour
event among others.

And we won!   ACTJCL won the 2002 ACT Sport and Recreation Industry Award
for innovation at a club level.  Along with my (very delicious) lunch and a
framed certificate, we received an award of $500 to put to good use in the
junior chess arena this year.

The award recognised ACTJCL's efforts in 2002 where we created our
Development Squad program; where our tournament attendances reached record,
or near-record, levels; where we successfully sought inclusion on the School
Sports Calendar; and where we came up with lots of new and exciting ways to
raise our profile and increase participation generally.

Far too many photographs were taken for my liking, and I did have to say a
few words.  WIN news attended the event and (hopefully with me edited out)
we may just get a mention in their bulletin this evening.  Coverage like
this is what ACTJCL actually sought in putting ourselves forward for the
awards.  The $500 is a fantastic bonus but our inclusion in the event, and
any media coverage we receive, is invaluable in raising our profile in the

More information is available on the Department's website

Libby Smith
Publicity Officer
ACT Junior Chess League


29 September to 3 October 2003
An official Australian Chess Federation event
Venue Rydges Oasis Resort Caloundra, Sunshine Coast, Queensland

Six clubs have confirmed their entry into this inaugural event. The event
will definitely proceed.

Gold Coast, Canberra, Bullwinkle (Brisbane), Suncoast, St George
(Sydney), and Kerry Stead's 'University Students of
Sydney'. Other clubs are possibilities.

I understand that Ian Rogers is a certainty for St George and that Stephen
Solomon and David Smerdon are very likely to be representing Gold Coast and
Brisbane respectively.

The organisers (Graeme Gardiner and Kerry Corker) reiterate that they are
taking a very loose definition of what constitutes club membership in the
first year. Even if players only join their club in the weeks leading up to
the event, this will be acceptable.

We will be able to accept additional clubs virtually right up until the
event. However, although accommodation is available at the venue now, Rydges
Oasis cannot guarantee accommodation indefinitely.

The entry fee is $400 per team. Cheques for $400 should be made payable to
Gold Coast Chess Club and mailed to Graeme Gardiner at 11 Hardys Road
Mudgeeraba Qld 4213

Full details at:

- Graeme Gardiner

"Rogers and Hammerstein"

I had the pleasure of attending Ian Rogers' Secrets of the Top Ten at Wijk
aan Zee - a lecture designed for adults (Gardiner Chess Centre).

I was curious to see what was meant by 'secrets', and to discover whether
lectures on chess are as boring as chess videos?

For in excess of two hours Ian Rogers manouevred the display board and
audience with wonderful tales, anecdotes and game commentaries concerning
the top ten players at this fabled tournament.

We felt sadness for Timman and Karpov as they start to find it hard to keep
pace with the current generation of players. There were cheers as we heard
how Judit Polgar broke the psychological shackles to beat the big three of
Anand, Kasparov and Kramnik. You could feel the heartbeats race as we went
with Kramnik through his recovery after not playing a human for eighteen

Then there was the cognitive journey of understanding 'Mr Nice Guy' Vishy
Anand and his games. Suffering and obscurity came to mind as we traced
Bareev, Van Wely and Ponomariov.

And my personal favourite; the ever attacking Shirov. Got to love the person
who uses the Caro-Kann as a weapon of destruction!

For extra value there were tidbits on Leko, Adams and let's not forget the
man we love to hate - Kasparov.

However, I think the highlight for me and probably many others came when
David Lovejoy asked for commentary on the only lost game of the Chinese lad
who won the B group at Corus. Ian explained with humbleness how he himself
inflicted the only loss upon the winner of the tournament. I think Shirov is
still my favourite but gee Ian runs a close second.

Thanks for the time, dedication, emotional rollercoaster and fun of the
evening. If you feel you missed something, you did.

- Peter Bender


Firstly thank you, I can read the bulletin again. 

Also, since I have been mentioned recently in  connection with the great 
Australian ratings debate I feel obliged to add my two cents worth. 
I gleefully support the glicko system. Soon I shall be the highest rated 
Australian player by quite a margin. Then I can play in say the Cape York open 
and cement my well deserved gains.

Gleefully yours,
- Alex Wohl.


Hi Paul, 

Like most readers of the bulletin I've been following the ratings debate 
with interest.  I think both sides have now expressed the merits of their 
case to their limits, and I echo Jeremy Hirschhorn's observation that 
the increasingly personal nature of the comments are doing no-one's 
case any credit.  This email is to voice my concern  against Charles 
Zworestine's call for a survey of chess players about which system 
they prefer.  Charles has been a personal friend for over 17 years so 
I know he won't be offended to know I violently disagree with him on this 
issue :)  I think introducing yet another element about legitimacy of a 
rating system (ie its popularity amongst players) is dangerous and 
likely to make matters worse.  This would really be an extension of 
the argument that says elite players would be qualified to act on a 
Ratings Committee simply because they're elite players!  To put it bluntly, 
the rank and file chessplayer is not qualified to pass judgement on whether 
the ratings system is good or bad - not without a good degree of study into 
the heart of the case.  If ever there was a situation whether democracy 
was not such a good thing, it'd be here.  What if the rank and file overwhelmingly 
vote for ELO and we change the system ... only to be surveyed again in a 
couple of years and it turns out they now prefer Glicko2?!  The consequences 
would be total anarchy, which not even the ELO proponents would support.  
In my opinion, an ideal rating system should have zero element of subjectivity 
and 100% objectivity, popularity does not enter into it.  For what it's worth, 
having read all the comments and bypassed the personal stuff, it seems to 
me that Glicko2 is by far the better predictor of outcomes, and far from debating 
it over ELO, the debate should concentrate on whether improvements can be 
made by refining our use of the RD factor rather than ditching the thing wholesale.

- Alek Safarian 


I want to buy into the ratings debate on an emotive not technical level.
I have been rather busy in the last few weeks (schools competitions!),
but have dipped in and out of the ACF bulletin board and it seems
feelings are running high on the issue. 

I know Ian Rogers quite well and have never met Bill, but have had many
telephone conversations with him.  Ian is someone whom I have always
felt is very interested and supportive of chess in Australia at all
levels and in a very selfless way. I have the utmost respect for his
lack of self interest. 

I have always found Bill very approachable and know that he puts
gigantic hours of voluntary work into the ratings system. Once he became
convinced that there was a problem in the ACT he has worked hard to find
a solution. 

I think it is a sign of a healthy society that people fell free to raise
issues and debate them. There has been a lot of whining about the
ratings, so it was good that Ian raised the issue and thus provided a
forum for people to express their ideas and an opportunity for Bill to
educate us, where we were wrong and for him to take on ideas as well.

I suppose what I am afraid of is that people will be left feeling
animosity towards each other and this can only be negative for chess in
Australia.  So let's continue the debate - I am finding it very
interesting! - but in a constructive, not destructive way.  

- Jenni Oliver


Dear Paul,

I would like to make some responses to the ratings debate in last week's

Jeremy Hirschhorn basically suggests changing the ratings parameters so that
(in some cases at least) the lower-rated player will be assumed to have more
of a chance than at present, and suggests that this will stop the compaction
which I (at least) think is happening.  This is only likely to work well if
the compaction occurs fairly evenly through the rating system.  I very much
doubt it does.  For instance, while ratings around the 2000-2199 level also
seem to be dropping under Glicko, my rough calculations show that the drop
per active player is only about 40% that which is happening at the 2200+
level.  Further down, it might even be the case that juniors in some of the
lower to middle ratings bands were more underrated under ELO than those in
the very lowest bands (simply because the former might actually have been
improving faster than the latter).  I think we will fix the problems faster
by continuing with Glicko at its present dynamic level, and topping up the
whole pool every now and then when the top ratings get too far out of whack
with FIDE.  The brief appearance of the odd overrated ghost with ?? after
their rating seems a small price to pay.

The only other thing I'd like to add is that if Jeremy really hopes this
debate can be conducted less personally and more objectively, he might like
to start by not singling out pro-Glicko writers as particularly bad on the
"ad hominem" front, when both sides have been more or less equally prone to
personal comments.

As for Charles Zworestine's suggestions, I'm not sure how to say this
without sounding indifferent to democracy, so I won't bother trying ;) Or,
more accurately, indirect democracy is often better than direct democracy.
In this case, the idea that a player's survey at a single event would
indicate "general disquiet in the chess community" which should then be
acted on is taking things rather too far.  Charles mentions some of the
problems with such a survey but doesn't take them anywhere near seriously
enough (or consider how the particular ratings problems in the ACT, where
the Doeberl Cup is held, might skew the results).  A representative survey
of players from all ratings groups and age brackets (including juniors)
nationwide would be more interesting if the response rate was high enough,
though I still believe that considered discussion is far more effective than
non-interactive ticking of "I think" boxes.  However, rather than simply
asking players if they liked the system or didn't like it, you would need to
ask why.  I suspect then you would see much the same thing which already
continually crops up in debates about Glicko: those opposing it (rather than
merely suggesting minor amendments) can't decide whether the system is too
dynamic or not dynamic enough.

- Kevin Bonham.


It would be great if the ACF would step into this debate and announce an
enquiry into the Australian rating system but until then I feel obliged to
reply to the shockingly misleading reply by Bill Gletsos to my comment in
Bulletin 208. (I know Graham Saint also signed the email, but the text
reads as if it is almost entirely from Bill's hand.)

(i) Bill is trying to mislead readers again. My results were sent to
Olympiad selectors as 2/4, not 2/3 or the correct 3/3. If he coded them as
2/3, why did he send 2/4 to the selectors?
Bill also fails to understand the limitations of "current strength".
Sometimes the current ACF system looks as if it is moving in the direction
of giving each player their performance rating from their last tournament.
The logical extension of "current strength" is to give players their
performance rating from their last game only. Past results mean more than
Glicko gives them credit for.

(ii) Wettstein's rating went down 440 points on 9 games, and 37 points on
his next game, even though he had not been inactive, except in Australia.
The readers can judge whether this is acceptable or not.
By the way, has it occurred to Bill that an explanation for Markus
Wettstein's new, lower, performance rating is, in part, that the top end of
the Australian system has deflated substantially since he last played in

Bill says "[Wohl's] rating still hasn't [yet] progressed to the unreliable
stage."  Why should Wohl's rating progress to unreliable at all?  He is
extremely active!

As an aside, some countries include their local players' overseas results
in their local list, which not only avoids defining active players (such as
Wohl and Wettstein) as inactive and has the added bonus of keeping the
local rating system in sync with international ratings.

(iii) According to my recollection of a public conversation with Bill in
Lidcome about a year ago, the "unfounded rumour" about Speck's rating was
spread by none other than Bill himself. Memory can, of course, be fallible,
but, if the so-called rumour is untrue, my understanding is that Bill
should be apologising to himself and Graham.

(iv) Bill is being disingenuous (again). He only brought the problem of ACT
ratings up with the ACF because of pressure from people in the ACT. He was
not pro-active in solving the problem.

(v) Bill is being very tricky indeed. Under Glicko John-Paul loses 30
points for losing to Pecori and will take a perfect score over 16 gams to
win those points back. Under any normal Elo system with a 336 rule, Wallace
will take far fewer games to get the lost points back. E.g. under the FIDE
Elo system, Wallace would lose around 9 points and take about 8 games (with
a perfect score) to win back the points. Under the old ACF Elo system (with
the 336 rule) he would lose about 13 points and take the same number of
games as in the FIDE system to win them back. It is intellectual dishonesty
to claim it would take 21 games under Elo to win back him 14 points - this
would only apply with the removal of the 336 rule - one of the changes
which undermined the old ACF system and which FIDE will have nothing to do

(c) "As for Box Hill and Gold Coast chess clubs if they are so concerned
about under-rated juniors how come they have not raised the issue either
with us directly or to the ACF via Chess Victoria or the CAQ?"  
So only if people are suffiicently unhappy to complain will the ACF ratings
officers 'discover' a problem. Perhaps the ratings officers should keep
their ears to the ground a bit more and they would hear a large number of
complaints regarding the current rating system.

(d) Bill contradicts himself badly. He says "Although Ian was the major
beneficiary [of the 336 rule] he was not the only beneficiary amongst the
elite players."
Then he says "Of all the active players on the ACF and FIDE rating lists
Ian was the only player with a [FIDE] rating in excess of his ACF rating."
So clearly the 336 rule was not responsible for general inflation or else
it was helping to correct a much bigger deflationary problem at the top of
the list. 
Either way, removing it was a blunder - the problem was general deflation
plus my inflating rating, not the 336 rule.
The 'solution' reduced my rating satisfactorily but long-term (discounting
the 150 point bonus) deflated the ratings of most other active elite

"What Ian fails to appreciate is that all rating systems are based on
mathematics. To argue for a system that is not mathematically sound, lacks
Speaking as someone with tertiary qualifications in maths and statistics, I
find this criticism very amusing.
Contrary to Bill and Graham's assertions, I understand the Glicko system
perfectly well. I am also aware of at least one highly qualified
mathematician and chessplayer who believes that Glicko is unsound as a
rating system for tournament chess.
I also understand that human behaviour, including their chess results, do
not perfectly match any statistical model. I am trying to improve the
modelling. By his reaction to every suggestion, Bill seems to think that he
already has a more-or-less perfect model.
I also happen to agree with the many people who think that the ratings Bill
and Graham are producing are inferior - moving up and down too erratically,
based too heavily on a player's last few games, etc.
I am amazed that Bill is so wedded to Glicko that he cannot comprehend a
hybrid Glicko (or Elo) system, with "mathematically unsound" elements which
simply improve the output. (That is precisely what the 150 point bonus, for
some and not others, was.)

Incidentally, Bill and Graham also do not seem to understand the
well-researched psychological factors involved in gain and loss.
Illogical as it may seem, a big loss is viewed more negatively than a big
gain is viewed positively. Additionally, two small gains are viewed more
positively than one big rise of the same amount. A good rating system would
take these psychological factors into account and keep the K factor low for
established players.

Incidentally, the example given by Bill in Bulletin 209 is almost
worthless. The example has been rigged to help bolster some of the ratings
officers' arguments; e.g. there is no 336 rule for the Elo calculations 
and the juniors are, ingeniously, entering the system at a rating very
close to 1,000 (rather than, say, 200), to negate the benefit of a 1,000
starting rating. 

I could propose another equally valid example, where a junior under Glicko
gets a 200 starting rating (having performed at that level against other
low rated juniors), then improves quickly and demonstrates this improvement
when he or she first starts playing 1,500 players in an adult tournament.
Under such circumstances, the Elo system, with a 336 rule and an
introductory 1,000 rating would win hands down over Glicko. (Depending on
the number of games chosen and the number of times the junior beats the
1500s, I would expect the junior to finish with a higher rating than using
Glicko and for the 1500 players to lose a comparable number of points.)
Probably a Glicko system with a 336 rule and a 1,000 starting rating would
also beat the current Glicko.

But, as Bill and Graham know, it is easy to use statistics to prove almost
anything. The real worry is that neither Bill nor Graham seem to see that
the current system has  general problems.

By the way, a serious error crept into Bill's reply in Bulletin 208. On the
subject of bonus points for activity, Bill writes:

"The USCF Executive Board tried to (for a short time actually did)
implement against the vigorous objections of the USCF Ratings Committee the
introduction of "fiddle points" to players simply because they played
games. Fortunately this was stopped/reversed."

Contrary to Bill's assertion, bonus points for activity (or "fiddle points"
as Bill calls them) were used in the US rating system for more than a
decade. Clearly the Executive Board understood better than the Ratings
Committee that bonus points would encourage people to play chess. Only
after many years did the Ratings Committee get their way and abolish bonus
It's a pity that Bill views reversal of an encouragement for people to play
chess as "fortunate". 
Perhaps this is the crux of our disagreement. Bill sees bonus points as
inherently inflationary - "mathematically unsound" - and therefore doesn't
even consider the possible benefits. 

It is the difference between a pure statistician and a tournament player.
Bill wants a rating system that 'works' perfectly - in his mathematical
terms. I want a rating system that works well for Australian chessplayers,
is perceived as doing so (e.g. is transparent, not too erratic and roughly
comparable to FIDE ratings), and benefits Australian chess. 

It would be nice to believe that the two of us are not pulling in different

- Ian Rogers


I would like to bring a few ideas to the table regarding the Glicko system.  
My thoughts are of a practical nature rather than being mathematically based 
(as I have not attempted to understand in detail how Glicko, ELO or any other 
system actually works) and so maybe some of my ideas will prove untrue 
but hopefully add a useful perspective to the discussion.

1) Firstly I would like to sincerely acknowledge the efforts of Bill Gletsos 
and Graham Saint as volunteering to be ACF ratings officers - volunteer 
work is very often a difficult and thankless task…thanks for your persistence guys!
2) As I understand it the Glicko system aims to reflect current strength 
(primarily through the RD/variable k factor) - this aim is in itself a good thing. 
3) However, in my opinion 2 things can go wrong when someone, after 
a long break  (and now having a very high RD/k factor) plays a tournament 
and plays well above/below his rating:
A) The tournament in which player X competed may be the last one that will 
be rated on the next list and thus on the new list player X's rating may be 
very inaccurate. In my opinion this matters a great deal as I think it is a 
real problem when players are "obviously" rated much higher/lower than they 
'should' be for a whole rating period. Sure, next rating period it may have 
corrected itself but I still think it is a problem.
B) Player X may may stop playing for whatever reason and is left on the list 
with a rating "obviously" too low or too high. Again, in my opinion this is a 
problem as the rating list then lacks credibility.

4) Another point that I would like to make is:
Is it really valuable to go to all this trouble to try and gauge current 
strength? I am guessing that the RD increases largely as one would 
think that a chess players strength would decrease after an absence. 
However, I query this is from my own personal experience and 
observations it seems to me that after an absence from 'play' a 
chess players strength may not decrease by too serious a margin 
at all. I would cite the following reasons why:

1) Some of my best results were after a 6 month break from play. 
Perhaps ideas "gel" in this period
2) Players can keep form by playing on the net, through training games etc
3) Studying/reading chess can keep form
4) Playing overseas definitely keeps form (I realise this may be an 
argument for Glickos RD as these are players that might be underrated!) 
though these tournaments aren't rated by the ACF in our ACF ratings. 
Perhaps we should look into changing this although that could open 
up a host of other problems

In closing, a bit of brainstorming uncovered some potential ideas. As I 
see it the key problem is that someone can be sitting on a list with a rating 
significantly higher or lower than it "should be". Sure, if this person continues 
to play the rating will stabilise but in the meantime player X's large gains/losses 
ruin the credibility of the rating list - precisely because this process is not 
hidden in some way. Perhaps what could be set in place instead (and this 
may have been suggested already) is some sort of bonus point system 
where after a long (this would have to be defined of course) break a player's 
next 30 games are rated 'normally' but monitored, and if after 30 games a 
big discrepancy is discovered between current strength and the initial rating 
an appropriate amount of bonus points could be added. Of course alternately  
points could be taken off if the players strength has dropped significantly.

- John-Paul Wallace


Dear Editor

Please reduce the amount, or the content of the letters concerning the 
ratings dispute. Imagine how many interesting chess news, games etc, would 
fit to the space now given to fruitless arguments on a subject which is by 
its nature deprived of even the slightest possibility for an agreement.

- Tassos


A Class 3 ACF Grand Prix Event 18-21 April 2003
Location: The Italo-Australian Club, 
78 Franklin Street, Forrest, Canberra, ACT.
Total Prizes: $10,000
Time Limits: Digital clocks will be used. 
All divisions: 90 minutes plus 30 seconds per move from the beginning.
Entry Fees:
Premier Division: Adult $100; Under 18s $60 
(GMs & IMs free, if entry received by 11-04-2003.
Major & Minor Divisions: Adult $90; Under 18s $50 
Please note that a $20 (Adult) /$10 (Under 18s) 
discount applies, if entry is received by 11-04-2003.
Entries to: 
Paul Dunn (Treasurer, Doeberl Cup)
20 Richmond St, Macquarie, ACT 2614
Please make cheques payable to ACTCA.
Roger McCart (Convener, Doeberl Cup) Ph: 02-62516190

The fourth Sydney Easter Cup will be held at Cabra-Vale Diggers Club, 1
Bartley Street Cabramatta on Easter Saturday and Monday commencing at
9.30am.  7 rounds of 1 hour each per player, loss on flagfall.  Entry fees:
full $25, Concession $15, Junior $10.  Guaranteed first prize of minimum
$250. Register and pay on first day of play.  Games will be rated.  Contact:
Ernest Dorm 9727-2931

Category 2 Grand Prix event
April 25-27
ChessWorld Tournament Centre 
Contact David Cordover (03) 957 6177 or 0411-877-833

8 rounds,15 minutes each
Friday 25th April 2003
Carina Leagues Club
Creek Road, Carina (opposite Meadowlands Rd)
Register by 10.00am
Entries: Close by 5pm Thursday 24th April
Rounds: Start at 10.15am - 4 before lunch and 4 after
Fee: $40-00 each player 
Contact: Clive or Wendy Terry (07) 3890-0064  041-3355479 
Only 20 places available so get your entries in early!
Morning tea provided - Club Bistro open from 1pm. 
Make all cheques to ROOKIES CHESS CLUB 
and post to 11 Jericho Circuit, Murarrie. 4172

Queensland Junior Rated! 
8 rounds, 15 minutes each. Friday 25th April 2003
Carina Leagues Club
Creek Road, Carina (opposite Meadowlands Rd)
Time: Register by 10.00am
Entries: Close by 5pm Thursday 24th April
Rounds: Start at 10.15am - 4 before lunch and 4 after
Fee: $15-00 each player 
Presentation of Trophies: No later than 4.30pm
Organisers and Arbiters: Clive & Wendy Terry 3890-0064  041-3355479
Limited places available - Morning tea provided - Club Bistro open from 1pm.
Make all cheques to ROOKIES CHESS CLUB 
and post to 11 Jericho Circuit, Murarrie. 4172

MAY 3-5 2003
D.O.P. Ian Murray
Mark Stokes 20 Melaleuca Drive STRATHPINE   4500 ‘Phone  (07) 32056042 
email :

One day event, low entry fee and $1,250 in cash prizes [60% of prizes for rating divisions!].
Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club			
117 Ryedale Rd, West Ryde 
(1 minute from West Ryde Station)
Sunday 11th May
10am Registration
Rounds will commence on the hour, starting with Round 1 at 11:00am
Last round commences at 5:00pm. 
For further information contact Jason Lyons by telephone [0412 907 686], 
email, or visit the NSWCA website:

7 rounds "swiss"
sponsored by John Edmondson V.C. Memorial Club
185 George Street Liverpool
12th May till 30th of June, 2003,
"A" Division Rating 2050 - 1751  Entry Fees $ 40
"B" Division Rating 1750 - 1451  Entry Fees $ 30
"C" Division Rating 1451 & under Entry Fees $ 20
Cheque payable to JEVC Chess Club Liverpool
DOP: Eddy Katnic,  Tel. 02 9823 0163   Fax 02 9823 0194
Venue : Gardiner Chess Centre
11 Hardys Road, Mudgeeraba
9am start both days
** ENTRY FEE $40.00 **
Entrants must be members of their state chess association
Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th May
(Entries close noon Friday 23rd May)
ENTRY FEE - $40.00
CAQ membership fee $10
Please pay to
C/- Russell Mowles
30-32 Enkleman Road
Yatala 4207
Ph:(07)38076278 Mob:0408 785925

$4000 Total Prizes
Category Three Grand Prix
12th & 13th July
$35 Adult   $25 Junior/Concession
Adelaide University, SA
Official site

4-6 October 2003 at Rooty Hill RSL.
7 round FIDE-rated event. Australian Grand Prix Category 3. 
Time limit 90 minutes plus 30 seconds/move.
We have reverted to the traditional name used for this weekender since 
1993, when the Greater Sydney Open took over from the The New England Open.
It is a public holiday weekend (Labour Day) in NSW, ACT and SA.
- Brian Jones

Asian Under 16 Championships
21 -30 April Fergana, Uzbekistan
Asian Youth Championships (Under 10, 12 & 14)
6 - 14 June Mongolia
World Junior & Girls Under 20 Championships
21 June - 4 July Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan
World Youth Under 16 Olympiad
2 - 10 August Denizli, Turkey
World Youth Championship
23 October - 2 November Halkidiki, Greece
Players wishing to be considered for selection in overseas junior events for
the year 2003 are asked to email Kerry Stead, the ACF Junior Co-ordinator
with their name, date of birth & events they are interested in playing in as
soon as possible.
Kerry Stead
ACF Junior Co-ordinator

Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan
21 June - 4 July 2003
21 June 2003 (arrival) to 4 July 2003 (departure) 
at the Olympic Center of Nakhchivan. 
Only those born on or after 1st January 1983 are eligible.
The Registration Forms shall be submitted to 
Azerbaijan Chess Federation to be received before 30 May 2003.
Swiss System, 13 rounds, with a free day after the 7th round.


Doeberl Cup
Category 3
Apr 18-21
Contact Roger McCart
'phone  (06) 6251 6190

Chess World ANZAC Day weekender
Category 2
April 25-27
ChessWorld Tournament Centre
Contact David Cordover (03) 957 6177 or 0411-877-833

37th. Peninsula Open
Category 1
May  3-5
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042

Laurieton May Open
Category 1
May 3-4
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

NSWCA May Weekender
Category  2
May 17-18
Contact P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Tasmanian Chess Championship
Category  1
Jun 7-9
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487

NSW Open Championship
Category  3
Jun 7-9
Contact: P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Taree RSL June Open
Category 1
Jun 14-15
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

Gold Coast Open (Gold Coast CC)
Category 3
Jun 21-22
Contact Graeme Gardiner
(07) 5530 5794

Caloundra Open
Category 3?
Jun 28/29
Contact Derrick Jeffries

University Open
Category  3
JUL 12-13 ph (08) 8303 3029 or ph  (08) 8332 3752

NSWCA August Weekender
Category  2
Aug 2-3
Contact P.Cassettari
0403 775476

Father's Day Tournament
Category 2/3?
Sep 6-7
Contact:  David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833

Gold Coast Classic (Gold Coast CC)
Category 3
Sep 20-21
Contact Graeme Gardiner
(07) 5530 5794

12th. Redcliffe Challenge
Category 2
Sep 27-28
Contact Mark Stokes (07) 3205 6042

Tweed Open
Category  3
Oct 4-5
Contact Audie Pennefather

Koala Open
Category 3
Oct 5-6
Contact Brian Jones

Laurieton Open
Category 1
Nov 1-2
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

November weekender
Category  1
Nov 1-2 or 1-3
Contact  K.Bonham  (03) 6224 8487

Gosford Open
Category 2
Nov 8-9
Contact Lachlan Yee

Taree RSL Spring Open
Category 1
Nov 15-16
Contact Endel Lane  (02) 6559  9060

NSWCA November Weekender
Category 2
Nov 22-23
0403 775476

X-Mas Swiss Tournament
Category 2-3?
December 20-21
Contact David Cordover (03) 9576177 or 0411-877-833

Total 29 NSW 14 QLD 6 VIC 4 ACT 1 TAS 3 SA 1

Best wishes till next time
- Paul Broekhuyse